The Big Decision on Federal Judges: War or Peace

[TahoeHorn 107]

I'm here for my first, and perhaps only, post of 2019.  I'm not sure why.  Perhaps because it's a topic I'm intensely interested in, and I'm willing to talk to a brick wall.

I believe that the Senate, or perhaps the Senate Judiciary Committee, will face a huge decision roughly at the end of Summer.  This decision is whether to escalate or de-escalate the confirmation process for District Judges.  There is no hope for the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees or Circuit Court nominees, but there is for District nominees.  There are three possibilities going forward:

1. Peace: Key players for both parties would go on record as supporting the use of Blue Slips by home state Senators to effectively veto any nominee (for the District Judge seats in their state).  Everyone would agree that they will not get rid of the practice when they are in the majority.  They would also agree that when they are in the minority they will act in good faith, and use the veto only for nominees who are poor, not for ones who don't share their judicial views.  But both parties would agree that if the majority perceives the minority is not acting in good faith they still won't get rid of the practice.

2. Cold War:   Key players for both parties go on record as supporting the use of Blue Slips by home state Senators to effectively veto any nominee.  Everyone agrees that they will not get rid of the practice when they are in the majority.  There is an expectation that the minority will abuse this practice, resulting in a situation where Senators effectively nominate the District Judges at the point where their party has the Presidency and the Senate, and the seats remain vacant for years if they don't have the Presidency and the Senate.  We have a Lebanonization of District courts.

3. Hot War:  No deal can be reached.  The GOP gets rid of the courtesy, and District Court Judges get appointed like Supreme Court Justices and Circuit Court Judges.

We currently have the Hot War with Supreme Court Justices.  It began with Bork but got cooled down.  It flared up with Thomas but cooled again.  The GOP played nice with Ginsburg (96-3) and Breyer (87-9).  They weren't ugly with Sotomayor (68-31) and Kagan (63-37), but they weren't nice  The Dems played fairly nice with Roberts (78-22) but were  ugly with Alito (58-42) and Gorsuch (54-45).  They were really ugly with Kavanaugh (50-48) and a smear campaign.  The GOP was ugly with Garland.  The Hot War is here for the foreseeable future.

The Hot War with Circuit Court Judges began in 2013 when Harry Reid changed the rules.  The Cold War began on a small scale a few decades ago and turned into a big one under Obama.  Unfortunately for the Dems they lost the Senate in 2014 and couldn't make use of their Presidential power, and we had  a trench warfare gridlock.

The Republicans have continued the Hot War with Circuit Court Judges, but have refrained from a hot war with District Judges.  The Cold War continues, but the Dems have taken it to a whole new level.  The Dems have been trying to veto everything and use every procedural tactic to slow things down.  I won't belabor it (you can look it up if you care).  I follow it carefully every day.  It takes hundreds and hundreds of hours of Senate time for what, until recently, was done quickly without filibuster.  In modern times I think there were only six  judicial filibusters until Trump.  Since, we've had about 70.  EVERY hearing is "carried over".  EVERY vote to report out is carried over.  Blue Slips are rarely returned.

The GOP has about 199 (and rising every month) District Judge spots to fill.  They have filled 65 and have another 50 or so in the pipeline.  They are filling seats in Red States and in states with a bipartisan commission which recommends nominees (and neither side is being a dick with that process).  But the negotiations on how to fill seats in Purple States and Blue States has gone poorly.  The Dems reject everything, even people they loved before.  They want the GOP to spend time on even the ones they like.

But Lindsey Graham has been honoring the Blue Slip courtesy for District Judges.  So far.  But when the seats are filled where there isn't a Blue Slip problem the GOP will have to decide what to do.  The right thing is to do a Peace deal.  I don't see the GOP leaving 70 seats vacant in places like California, New York, Florida, Michigan and Massachusetts if there isn't some deal.  They might go for a Cold War, if the Dems promise not to make it hot when they get control, but they I don't think they honor the Blue Slip courtesy unless they have an "on the record" commitment by Dems that they will do so as well when they get power.

There are some Dems who recognize that a Hot War is not good.  I think they want to do a deal with Graham.  But none have gone on the record as supporting his deal, and it's not clear that Graham can get the GOP to trust the Dems even if they do.

So ... what will happen?

[hobbes2702 13,048]

Hopefully what will happen is you will go away and go back to supporting pedophiles for Congress.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Mitch McConnell will do whatever the worst choice for the country is and that further increases his political power and pocketbook. Given that,  It’s pointeless to even debate it. 

He’s an even bigger cancer than trump. When the dems retake the senate the very first bill should be the tar and feather Mitch bill. 

[Gil Bang 25,978]

The Dems reject everything, even people they loved before

Examples?  Because I call bullshit.

 

[hobbes2702 13,048]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Examples?  Because I call bullshit.

 

It’s all bullshit

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

The responses I expected.  Don’t waste your time with these loons Tahoe.  Everything they hate about Trumpkins is what they are for the other side.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

If I were a dem senator, and the dems got the majority, I would go completely scorched earth on the republicans. They don’t care about rules. They only somewhat honor them when they think it will help them when there are inevitably in the minority. 

The dems need to retake the senate, and then blow up all non majority rules and tell the Republicans to simply go to hell. They’ve earned it. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

The responses I expected.  Don’t waste your time with these loons Tahoe.  Everything they hate about Trumpkins is what they are for the other side.  

Posted from your mansion in River Oaks? 

Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. 

Then gets picked off and blames the libs.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

Posted from your mansion in River Oaks? 

Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. 

Then gets picked off and blames the libs.

None of the shit you make up about me has anything to do with this thread.  

Congrats on you and your lib friends turning this into Texags Politics West.  

[hobbes2702 13,048]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The responses I expected.  Don’t waste your time with these loons Tahoe.  Everything they hate about Trumpkins is what they are for the other side.  

Y’all should get a room and fuck.

[cactusflinthead 27,601]

Merrick Garland

You want nuclear option? You got it. 

Fuck off 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,562]

Inb4 tahoe classics

[wildcat09 29,355]

Garland was dropping a nuke. There's no peace after that until the GOP in its current incarnation is functionally eradicated as an effective political party.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

And your previous post advanced the discussion how? All you did was tell Tahoe his post wasn’t well received because, “libs.”

Why don’t you start preparing your strategy for getting a bunch of idiots to caravan to the polls with you to vote for trump. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Garland was dropping a nuke. There's no peace after that until the GOP in its current incarnation is functionally eradicated as an effective political party.

No it wasn’t.  Dems would have done the same.  Just like they were willing to do and did do to Bush federal court appointees his last year. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[lemonlime 5,503]

 

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

No it wasn’t.  Dems would have done the same.  Just like they were willing to do and did do to Bush federal court appointees his last year. 

You believe whatever bullshit you want, big guy.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

You believe whatever bullshit you want, big guy.

I’ll believe what Reid did.  Refuse to put up for a vote Bush article III judges for vacancies opened in Bush’s last year.  

That is what happened.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Yeah I remember very well that time the dems refused to even hold a vote or consider a Supreme Court nominee. Those damn dems 

[David Dennison 18,924]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I’ll believe what Reid did.  Refuse to put up for a vote Bush article III judges for vacancies opened in Bush’s last year.  

That is what happened.  

Well, just know what goes around comes around and there are going to be a whole lot of super liberal judges in America sooner rather than later.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah I remember very well that time the dems refused to even hold a vote or consider a Supreme Court nominee. Those damn dems 

They did with every federal judge that a vacancy opened in Bush’s last year.  You think Harry does different for one of the High 9?

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Oh Noes! Article III judges? That sounds like someone who knows what’s up. 

I hate it when lawyers like Barr lie by seriously misleading without technically “lying” or committing perjury. Most normal people do hate that. 

It’s why guys like the sack give lawyers a bad name. If he really is one. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Well, just know what goes around comes around and there are going to be a whole lot of super liberal judges in America sooner rather than later.

Predictions are worthless.  Ask Madam President.  

[David Dennison 18,924]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

They did with every federal judge that a vacancy opened in Bush’s last year.  You think Harry does different for one of the High 9?

Thanks for the precedent when it comes to SCOTUS. 

[David Dennison 18,924]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Predictions are worthless.  Ask Madam President.  

And President Romney.

And President McCain.

And Speaker McCarthy.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Thanks for the precedent when it comes to SCOTUS. 

Thank Joe B.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

They did with every federal judge that a vacancy opened in Bush’s last year.  You think Harry does different for one of the High 9?

Link for that assertion?

Regardless most of us understand the difference between district court judges and the Supreme Court. Most of us. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Link for that assertion?

Regardless most of us understand the difference between district court judges and the Supreme Court. Most of us. 

Most of us know there is a level between district court and Supreme Court justices.  Most of us.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Most of us know there is a level between district court and Supreme Court justices.  Most of us.  

Fucking liar. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_George_W._Bush

[JimmyJames 12,271]

 Care to respond sack? 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

 Care to respond sack? 

Now do it for the ones they refused to put up for a vote.  Ask Peter Keisler.  

[David Dennison 18,924]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now do it for the ones they refused to put up for a vote.  Ask Peter Keisler.  

Those people got blue slipped.

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Find me a circuit court judge where the vacancy opened in Bush’s last year like Scalia’s opened.  And that was put up for a vote.  I know all sorts were held up at district court and appellate court .  Because Reid and the Dems said to fuck off   

You realize there is a timeline

vacancy - nomination - confirmation. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now do it for the ones they refused to put up for a vote.  Ask Peter Keisler.  

It appears he was nominated when the republicans controlled the senate. That doesn’t help you, at all. 

Try again? 

[Gil Bang 25,978]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now do it for the ones they refused to put up for a vote.  Ask Peter Keisler.  

That's not what you said upthread: "They did with every federal judge that a vacancy opened in Bush’s last year.  You think Harry does different for one of the High 9?"

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

That's not what you said upthread: "They did with every federal judge that a vacancy opened in Bush’s last year.  You think Harry does different for one of the High 9?"

 

He’s lying jake. It’s Chinatown. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It appears he was nominated when the republicans controlled the senate. That doesn’t help you, at all. 

Try again? 

And his nomination was in the pipeline when the Dems took over.  They refused to vote on him.  

Was also before Reid did the nuke option. So the GOP could not ram him through if they wanted to.  

Edited May 17, 2019 by Johnny Sack

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Find me a circuit court judge where the vacancy opened in Bush’s last year like Scalia’s opened.  And that was put up for a vote.  I know all sorts were held up at district court and appellate court .  Because Reid and the Dems said to fuck off   

You realize there is a timeline

vacancy - nomination - confirmation. 

So  if a judge died in September 2008 and the dems don’t get his replacement nominated and approved in time for bush to approve it that’s dem obstruction? 

You know very well the Supreme Court is different. Stop being obtuse. Is it deliberate? 

Way to argue, counselor. 

[David Dennison 18,924]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And his nomination was in the pipeline when the Dems took over.  They refused to vote on him.  

But they confirmed plenty nominated during W.'s final year in office. 

Edited May 17, 2019 by David Dennison

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

And his nomination was in the pipeline when the Dems took over.  They refused to vote on him.  

It also appears the republicans did as well. Maybe there was a reason for that. Beyond that, who gives a shit? 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Just now, David Dennison said:

But they confirmed plenty during W.'s final year in office. 

The sack is ignoring that particular fact. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Which of you with a straight face would tell me that Harry Reid would have allowed a vote on a Bush SCOTUS nominee if Ginsburg had croaked in February of 2008?

[David Dennison 18,924]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Which of you with a straight face would tell me that Harry Reid would have allowed a vote on a Bush SCOTUS nominee if Ginsburg had croaked in February of 2008?

He absolutely would have.

[hayden_horn 11,362]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Which of you with a straight face would tell me that Harry Reid would have allowed a vote on a Bush SCOTUS nominee if Ginsburg had croaked in February of 2008?

Honestly, we will never know. We do, however, know exactly what mcconnell did. Because he did it, and because he has no principles. 

You can't hand wave what your party actually did with some hypothetical thing the opposition party MIGHT have done. Maybe. 

[David Dennison 18,924]

I wonder if Johnny can tell us what happened to some of Bill Clinton's nominees at the end of his term.

[Gil Bang 25,978]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

Honestly, we will never know. We do, however, know exactly what mcconnell did. Because he did it, and because he has no principles. 

You can't hand wave what your party actually did with some hypothetical thing the opposition party MIGHT have done. Maybe. 

that they had never done before.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Which of you with a straight face would tell me that Harry Reid would have allowed a vote on a Bush SCOTUS nominee if Ginsburg had croaked in February of 2008?

He would have allowed a vote and the vote would have likely been no. Although we’ll never know. 

There is a difference. Cocaine Mitch has done great harm to this country. 

[David Dennison 18,924]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

He would have allowed a vote and the vote would have likely been no. Although we’ll never know. 

There is a difference. Cocaine Mitch has done great harm to this country. 

Republicans don't care about this country. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

He would have allowed a vote and the vote would have likely been no. Although we’ll never know. 

There is a difference. Cocaine Mitch has done great harm to this country. 

Really?  Miguel Estrada didn’t get a vote.  

[elfenix 34,322]

20 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now do it for the ones they refused to put up for a vote.  Ask Peter Keisler.  

Quote

At the time, the 109th Senate was controlled by the Republican Party. On August 1, 2006, he received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Senate on September 29, 2006 returned the nomination to the President without acting on it, prior to adjourning for the 2006 elections, on September 30, 2006.^[9][why?]

After the 2006 midterm congressional elections (in which the Democrats reclaimed control of the Senate), President Bush renominated Keisler on November 15, 2006. The Senate returned the nomination to Bush on December 9, 2006 without acting on the nomination, before the 109th Congress's final adjournment.

twice rejected while the republicans controlled the senate.  great example.